28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when a timely motion presents a substantial and material question of bankruptcy and nonbankruptcy federal law affecting interstate commerce.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of First NBC Bank Holding Company v. Ryan · filed 2021-03-25(d)

Accordingly, because the legal question presented in the proceeding to be withdrawn involves a substantial and material question of non-bankruptcy law that has a more than de minimis effect on interstate commerce, and the motion to withdraw the reference was timely filed, the requirements for mandatory withdrawal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) are met, and the reference of the Settlement Approval Motion to the bankruptcy court is withdrawn.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawing a bankruptcy reference despite non-core claims and a jury-trial right when the bankruptcy court can manage pretrial proceedings.

W.I.S.E. Underwriting Agency Limited v. OGGUSA, Inc. · filed 2021-03-31(d)

Although the Bankruptcy Court has determined that the claims asserted here are non-core and Defendant has the right to a jury trial, withdrawal is not appropriate at this time.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause after considering the bankruptcy court’s authority, whether the claims are core, and factors including efficiency, uniformity, jury trial rights, and forum shopping.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York v. Arrowood Indemnity Company · filed 2021-05-17(d)

For the reasons discussed above, Arrowood has shown cause for permissive withdrawal of the Diocese’s claims against it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Accordingly, Arrowood’s motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference is GRANTED.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial and material interpretation of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

Picard v. Associates · filed 2021-05-18(d)

For the reasons that follow, the Court determines that withdrawal of the reference is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial interpretation of unsettled federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

Picard v. Sage Realty · filed 2021-05-18(d)

In sum, as this case squarely involves “a matter of first impression, undecided by the Second Circuit,” that requires “significant interpretation and application of non-bankruptcy federal law,” the Court must withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding merely because it involves state law when no non-Bankruptcy Code federal statute is necessary to resolve it.

Cipollone v. Virginia True Corporation · filed 2021-05-25(d)

There is no serious basis for mandatory withdrawal in this case. Although this case involves some Virginia state laws, the Cipollones have pointed to no “non-Bankruptcy Code federal statutes [which are] necessary for resolution of” the underlying adversary proceeding.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because the claims arise under non-bankruptcy federal statutes.

In Re: Jose Ramon Quinones-Coll · filed 2021-06-11(d)

Furthermore, the fact that the claims involved fall under the RICO and Lanham Acts alone is not enough for a mandatory withdrawal of the reference in this Circuit.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference while the bankruptcy court handles pretrial matters.

Ben F. Blanton Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America · filed 2021-07-12(d)

Overall, the factors weigh in favor of denying the motion without prejudice at this time.

Section 157(d) requires cause for permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference.

Irizarry v. Rodriguez · filed 2021-08-31(d)

Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated cause for permissive withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause on a timely motion.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London & Certain London Mark · filed 2021-09-03(d)

For the reasons stated above, LMI have shown cause for permissive withdrawal of the Diocese’s claims against it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

A motion to withdraw the reference leaves the bankruptcy court with jurisdiction until the district court withdraws it.

Byrnes v. Byrnes · filed 2021-09-03(d)

The law is quite clear: unless and until the district court withdraws the reference, jurisdiction over the proceeding remains with the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference as premature while pretrial matters remain outstanding, even when cause for withdrawal exists.

Harker v. Webb · filed 2021-09-09(d)

Timing of the withdrawal, though, is equally -- if not more -- important than cause to withdraw. Here, because several pretrial matters remain outstanding, it is premature to elevate the adversary proceedings to the district court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawing a bankruptcy reference until the bankruptcy court completes outstanding pretrial matters.

Harker v. Cummings · filed 2021-09-09(d)

Here, because several pretrial matters remain outstanding, it is premature to elevate the adversary proceedings to the district court.

Section 157(d) places the decision whether to withdraw a bankruptcy reference with the district court.

Bledsoe III, Trustee v. Flamingo Properties, LLC · filed 2021-09-23(d)

The decision of whether the reference should, or must, be withdrawn lies with the district court. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5011; 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference on a timely motion for cause; non-core claims and preservation of jury-trial rights can favor withdrawal.

Corotoman Inc. v. Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority · filed 2021-09-24(d)

The Court may, however, withdraw a reference “on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Therefore, considered in the totality, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of withdrawing the reference to the Bankruptcy Court. The adversary proceeding is non-core, withdrawing the reference facilitates preservation of the parties’ right to a jury trial, and all other factors are neutral.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference in part when potential jury trial claims and lack of consent to bankruptcy court adjudication warrant it.

Happy Beavers LLC v. Angry Beavers, LLC · filed 2021-09-29(d)

However, given the presence of potential jury trial claims, and the understanding that withdrawal will be appropriate at some point given defendants’ lack of consent to adjudication by the bankruptcy court, the Court finds its appropriate to withdraw the reference in part, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference on a timely motion for cause shown; a possible jury trial does not alone require withdrawal.

Feltman v. Tri-State Employment Service, Inc. · filed 2021-11-02(d)

The possibility of a jury trial does not mandate withdrawal of the reference, though.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding for cause.

Markel Insurance Company v. Origin Bancorp Inc · filed 2021-11-02(d)

Having reviewed the Report, motion, response, and applicable law, the Court adopts the recommendation of the bankruptcy judge, grants the motion, and withdraws the reference from the Bankruptcy Court.!

Section 157(d) permits a district court to leave a proceeding with the bankruptcy court despite a jury demand when trial is not yet imminent.

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2021-11-08(d)

Although Liberty Mutual has made a jury demand (Adv. Pro. Doc. #61, at 18), the prospect of a jury trial does not require withdrawal of the reference from the Bankruptcy Court at this stage of the case.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference until jury trial while the bankruptcy court handles pretrial proceedings.

Williams v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America · filed 2021-11-19(d)

Insofar as Defendants are requesting immediate withdrawal of the reference, the Motion is denied. Insofar as Defendants are requesting that the reference be withdrawn for purposes of presiding over the jury trial, the motion is granted. The Court designates the bankruptcy court to conduct all pretrial proceedings other than jury selection.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when the relevant factors, including whether the claims are core, favor withdrawal.

Nitel, Inc. v. Cerberus Business Finance, LLC · filed 2021-12-03(d)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 157(d), a district court “may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... The Court agrees that, on the whole, these factors support Defendants’ motion to withdraw.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, and the party seeking withdrawal bears the burden of showing it.

IN Re: Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin · filed 2021-12-20(d)

The burden of demonstrating that a district court should withdraw the reference is on the party seeking withdrawal, and Smagin has failed to establish that any of the four factors favor withdrawal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Smagin’s Motion.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference merely because a proceeding is non-core.

24 Hour Fitness Worldwide, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company · filed 2022-01-04(d)

The fact that Plaintiff's claim is non-core is not dispositive and does not alter the Court’s conclusion.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal when a proceeding requires consideration of title 11 and other federal laws regulating interstate commerce, and permits withdrawal for cause shown.

LTL Management LLC - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2022-01-21(d)

Section 157 also authorizes district courts to withdraw a reference to a bankruptcy court in certain circumstances. ... In addition, a district court “may withdraw” a reference “for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... For the reasons discussed herein, the Adversary Proceeding is a “core” bankruptcy proceeding, creating a presumption against withdrawal, and the Pruitt factors do not override that presumption. Accordingly, withdrawal of the reference is not warranted.

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal of a referred bankruptcy proceeding for cause shown and requires withdrawal when the statutory conditions for mandatory withdrawal are met.

BERNSTEIN v. MEYER, UNKOVIC & SCOTT LLP · filed 2022-01-28(d)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(d), a district court “may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding” previously referred “for cause shown.” Moreover, a district court “shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” Id. Thus, the statute sets forth bases for withdrawal which are both mandatory and discretionary.

Section 157(d) permits the district court to withdraw a referred case or proceeding on its own motion or on a timely party motion for cause, and requires withdrawal when resolution requires consideration of title 11 and other federal laws regulating interstate commerce.

Welt v. Bumshteyn · filed 2022-02-01(d)

However, the reference may be withdrawn under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) which provides, the district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown. The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, consistent with the precise language of § 157(d), require that any motion to withdraw the reference be decided by the district court.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference at an early stage and leave pretrial matters with the bankruptcy court.

Insigneo Financial Group LLC v. Premier Assurance Group LLC · filed 2022-03-10(d)

Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to withdraw the reference at this early juncture of the proceedings. The Adversary Proceeding should properly remain in the Bankruptcy Court for the disposition of all pre-trial matters, including discovery and any dispositive motions.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; the need for eventual district court adjudication does not itself justify early withdrawal.

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC v. Mayer · filed 2022-03-17(d)

The fact that a claim may need to be adjudicated ultimately in district court does not mean, however, that withdrawal is appropriate or even prudent at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when core Bankruptcy Code claims and judicial efficiency favor keeping the proceeding in bankruptcy court.

US Trustee v. Deighan Law LLC · filed 2022-03-24(d)

Thus, these claims are core matters brought forth under the Bankruptcy Code, and this weighs in favor of keeping this matter in the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, including considerations of judicial economy, uniformity, and efficiency.

US Trustee v. Deighan Law LLC · filed 2022-03-24(d)

Withdrawal would not promote judicial economy, uniformity, or efficiency.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference when defendants are entitled to a jury trial and do not consent to trial in bankruptcy court.

Sousa v. Schakel · filed 2022-04-05(d)

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to withdraw reference is granted.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when the district court’s familiarity with the dispute and judicial economy outweigh factors favoring retention in bankruptcy court.

In Re: World-Wide Investment Services Limited · filed 2022-05-26(d)

On balance, despite the implication of core bankruptcy proceedings and the promotion of uniformity and efficiency of bankruptcy administration favoring the bankruptcy references, cause exists for withdrawing the references for the adversary proceedings. The close relation of the factual and legal issues raised in the adversary proceedings to those of the prior District of Utah bench trial are preeminent.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to leave an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court for pretrial matters even when final adjudication must occur in district court.

Soule v. Galaz · filed 2022-06-02(d)

Accordingly, the Court finds that, although defendant is entitled to final adjudication on plaintiff’s claims in the district court, the above factors weigh heavily in favor of permitting the adversary proceeding to remain in bankruptcy court for all pretrial matters and dispositive motions.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when judicial efficiency and uniformity favor keeping the proceeding in bankruptcy court.

AJ Ruiz Consultoria Empresarial S.A. v. Bank of China Limited · filed 2022-06-03(d)

Because referral to the bankruptcy court at this stage serves both judicial efficiency and uniformity, Plaintiff has not carried its burden of showing that withdrawal is warranted.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when keeping the proceeding in bankruptcy court serves judicial efficiency and uniformity.

AJ Ruiz Consultoria Empresarial S.A. v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. · filed 2022-06-03(d)

Because referral to the bankruptcy court at this stage serves both judicial efficiency and uniformity, Plaintiff has not carried its burden of showing that withdrawal is warranted.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it requires substantial and material interpretation of complex RICO claims involving activities that affect interstate commerce.

Harlow v. Wells Fargo & Co · filed 2022-06-21(d)

The court finds that these issues are sufficiently complex to mandate withdrawal, and the parties do not seem to dispute that Wells Fargo’s activities at issue affect interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) does not require immediate withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because a party demands a jury trial; the bankruptcy court may handle pretrial matters.

Dunn v. Ricci · filed 2022-08-06(d)

Moreover, Defendant has provided no authority to support his contention that the mere demand and entitlement to a jury trial constitute sufficient cause for withdrawal of the reference. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to withdraw the reference at this early juncture of the proceedings.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawing a bankruptcy reference despite a jury demand until a jury trial becomes inevitable.

Reid v. Johnson · filed 2022-08-23(d)

Based on this precedent, the Court finds withdrawal of the reference unnecessary and inappropriate at this time. If and when a jury trial becomes inevitable in the Adversary Proceeding, Reid may refile his motion.

Section 157(d) presumes that bankruptcy proceedings remain in bankruptcy court unless the party seeking withdrawal shows a contravening policy.

Piccone v. North Country Capital, LLC · filed 2022-09-20(d)

With respect to the Motion to Withdraw, Defendants have failed to demonstrate a “contravening policy” which rebuts the presumption created by § 157(d) that the adversary proceeding should be adjudicated by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw part of a referred bankruptcy proceeding for cause, including to use judicial resources efficiently.

Eagle Bear Inc. v. The Blackfeet Indian Nation · filed 2022-09-26(d)

A “district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The Court will entertain only the issue of the lease cancellation.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause and requires withdrawal when timely resolution requires both title 11 and specified federal laws.

Byrnes v. Byrnes · filed 2022-12-19(d)

Withdrawal of the reference to the bankruptcy court under § 157(d) may be either mandatory or permissive. ... The district court may withdraw of a reference to bankruptcy court for cause shown. Id. The moving party bears the burden to show cause, and courts have broad discretion over whether to permit withdrawal of the reference. ... Moreover, the Court analyzed the permissive withdrawal factors and concluded that withdrawal was not appropriate at that time.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because a proceeding includes a RICO claim; the movant must show that resolving the claim requires interpretation rather than mere application of RICO.

Stower v. Cornide · filed 2023-01-27(d)

Although Defendants have demonstrated that RICO claims often necessitate withdrawal, Defendants have not shown that in this case a court will be required to interpret, rather than merely apply, the non-title 11 RICO statute.

Section 157(d) does not allow withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference based solely on a potential future jury trial when the proceeding is not yet trial ready.

Burtch v. Zachem · filed 2023-03-28(d)

Although Trustee may be entitled to a jury trial, his potential entitlement at some future date is not sufficient grounds to withdraw the reference at this time.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw its referral of part of a bankruptcy matter for cause shown.

UMB Bank, N.A., P Appellant v. The MacMillin Company, LLC, et al., Appellees. The MacMillin Company, LLC, v. UMB Bank, N · filed 2023-04-03(d)

However, the court may withdraw that referral (known as withdrawing the “reference”) for any part of any bankruptcy matter “for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... The reference of Case No. 21-10523 to the bankruptcy court is withdrawn as to UMB Bank’s motion to cure, doc. no. 598 in Case No. 21-10523.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw its referral of part of a bankruptcy matter for cause shown.

The MacMillin Company, LLC v. UMB Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-04-03(d)

However, the court may withdraw that referral (known as withdrawing the “reference”) for any part of any bankruptcy matter “for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... The reference of Case No. 21-10523 to the bankruptcy court is withdrawn as to UMB Bank’s motion to cure, doc. no. 598 in Case No. 21-10523.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a reference for trial while leaving pretrial matters with the bankruptcy court.

Williams v. Macmillan · filed 2023-05-08(d)

The reference is withdrawn for trial only. All pretrial matters remain in the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for trial while leaving pretrial matters with the bankruptcy court.

Williams v. Shirley · filed 2023-05-26(d)

The reference is withdrawn for trial only. All pretrial matters remain in the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause on its own motion or a timely party motion, and requires withdrawal when resolution requires consideration of Title 11 and specified federal laws.

Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico · filed 2023-07-14(d)

The Court added a motion for mandatory withdrawal is untimely when “filed over half a year after § 157(d) became effective because, at that point, it was conspicuous on the face of pleading that it could be withdrawn.” See id. ... The same reasoning and conclusion apply here, Appellants request for withdrawal of the reference is untimely.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred bankruptcy proceeding for cause and requires withdrawal when resolving it requires consideration of Title 11 and specified other federal laws.

Charitable DAF Fund LP v. Highland Capital Management LP · filed 2023-07-26(d)

However, the bankruptcy court’s order granting dismissal effectively resolves the adversary proceeding; nothing is left to withdraw. Accordingly, a bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the adversary proceeding moots a pending motion to withdraw.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, in whole or in part, for cause shown.

Keawsri v. Ramen-ya Inc. · filed 2023-07-26(d)

28 U.S.C. § 157(d) provides that the “district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... For these reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw the reference from the Bankruptcy Court with respect to the Motion to Enforce.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for good cause and defer withdrawal until the case is ready for trial.

Williamson v. Always Ready, LLC · filed 2023-07-28(d)

But the district court may determine the timing of the withdrawal. It may wait until the case is ready for trial.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, assessed through factors including whether the proceeding is core and whether a party is entitled to a jury trial.

Tow v. Park Lake Communities, LP (In re Royce Homes, LP) · filed 2017-11-02(d)

Because there are four other factors also weighing against withdrawal, this Court believes that Park Lake has failed to meet its burden of showing that cause exists under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) for the reference of the Turnover Suit to be withdrawn. ... Based upon the Report and Recommendation of the Bankruptcy Court regarding the amended motion of Park Lake Communities, LP to withdraw the reference, the Court finds that the reference should not be withdrawn.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, taking into account judicial efficiency, delay, uniform bankruptcy administration, and forum shopping.

Toromanova v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions LLC · filed 2019-08-01(d)

Toromanova has not shown cause for permissively withdrawing the reference. The efficient use of judicial resources, delay, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, and prevention of forum shopping all counsel in favor of the bankruptcy court resolving core proceedings properly referred to it.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to keep a referred proceeding in bankruptcy court when the factors bearing on cause for withdrawal favor retaining the reference, even if most claims are non-core.

Advanced Green Innovations, LLC v. Dual Fuel, LLC · filed 2020-05-22(d)

The Court finds that the presence of at least one core claim and several “related to” non-core claims weighs in favor of keeping the reference of the Adversary Proceeding with the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when judicial efficiency, delay, costs, and uniform bankruptcy administration favor letting the bankruptcy court resolve a threshold issue.

In Re Sonoma West Medical Center · filed 2020-06-19(d)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for withdrawal of reference ... without prejudice and adopts the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the Bankruptcy Court ... resolve the Threshold Issue.

Section 157(d) does not require immediate withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because a party requests a jury trial.

Star Mountain Plan Trust v. Titan Mining (US) Corporation · filed 2021-11-05(d)

The Titan Defendants’ request for a jury trial does not mandate withdrawal of the reference at this time.

A motion to withdraw the reference under § 157(d) becomes moot when the bankruptcy court dismisses the underlying adversary proceeding.

In Re: Garden Fresh Restaurants, LLC · filed 2022-02-10(d)

A bankruptcy court order dismissing an adversary proceeding moots a motion to withdraw the reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to resolve a standing issue involving conventional pleading analysis; judicial economy also bears on discretionary withdrawal.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware Series Limited Liability Company v. Plant Insulation Company Asbestos Settle · filed 2022-03-11(d)

Resolving standing is a matter of conventional pleading and the Bankruptcy Court need not undertake analysis of significant open and unresolved issues regarding the non-title 11 law. ... Accordingly, mandatory withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference is not warranted at this juncture. Additionally, discretionary withdrawal of the reference would not promote judicial economy and will not be ordered.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when a party demands a jury trial that the bankruptcy court cannot conduct without consent.

Andrews-Burdette v. Hamelin · filed 2022-03-17(d)

A district court has authority to withdraw a reference to a bankruptcy court, in whole or in part, for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... The bankruptcy court cannot conduct a jury trial in this action because Defendant has not consented, and the verdict would be rendered on non-core matters. In re Cinematronics, 916 F.2d at 1451. Thus, withdrawal of the reference is appropriate on this ground alone.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to deny permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when efficiency favors keeping the proceeding in bankruptcy court.

MDIG Creditor Trust v. Wittenberg · filed 2022-04-14(d)

Therefore, efficiency concerns counsel against withdrawing the reference at this time.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference when resolving a proceeding requires consideration of federal laws regulating interstate commerce beyond Title 11.

Cary v. Patch Services LLC · filed 2022-05-17(d)

The Court finds that withdrawal of the reference is required under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) because resolution of the Adversary Case will require consideration of “laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce” other than Title 11, including the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. See Adversary Case, Dkt. No. 4 at 1, 24–27.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference as premature while pretrial proceedings remain pending.

Parker v. Star Nut, Co. · filed 2022-06-09(d)

Therefore, the court finds that withdrawal of the reference of the adversary proceeding would be premature at this time.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy proceeding for cause, including when withdrawal promotes efficiency and reduces delay and costs.

Stadtmueller v. Sarkisian · filed 2022-10-18(d)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), the Court “may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... The Court finds, however, that withdrawing the reference would promote efficiency and reduce delay and costs.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference only for a jury trial when judicial efficiency favors keeping the case in bankruptcy court until trial.

Wood v. Cathay Bank NA · filed 2022-10-21(d)

Good cause has not otherwise been shown for withdrawal. Judicial efficiency leans strongly in favor of keeping this matter before the Bankruptcy Court until the case is ready for trial. Bankruptcy courts are properly and uniquely situated to evaluate the merits of preference claims. Plaintiff otherwise credibly argues that the Court must withdraw the reference for the purpose of conducting a jury trial. See id. at 39. The Court therefore grants this Motion in part only for the purpose of holding a jury trial, if necessary.

Section 157’s withdrawal procedure requires a pending bankruptcy case or proceeding to withdraw.

Fortier v. 3139 Mount Whitney Rd. Trust Dated 06-14-2021 U.S. Financial L.P. · filed 2022-10-25

Accordingly, there is no longer a pending case or proceeding for this Court to withdraw from the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference on its own motion for cause, considering judicial resources, delay, costs, and forum shopping.

Torres v. Rothstein · filed 2023-01-04(d)

To the extent that Rothstein contends this matter is automatically referred to the bankruptcy court through Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001, I may withdraw the reference on my own motion “for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The “efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties,” and “the prevention of forum shopping” weigh favor of withdrawing the reference solely for purposes of concluding the trial. ... I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Allan Rothstein’s “notice of removal” (ECF No. 247) is DENIED. The January 18, 2023 status conference will go forward and the trial will be ... completed in this court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it calls for substantial interpretation of nonbankruptcy federal law.

In re Debtor Cachet Financial Services · filed 2023-02-06(d)

Accordingly, Bancorp has failed to show that non-title 11 federal issues “require the interpretation, as opposed to mere application, of the non-title 11 statute,” or that the Bankruptcy Court “must undertake analysis of significant open and unresolved issues” regarding non-title 11 federal law. ... The court, therefore, finds mandatory withdrawal is not appropriate under Section 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference as premature while pretrial proceedings remain pending.

(BK)RKF Global, PLLC v. Nuti Hart, LLP · filed 2023-05-22(d)

Here, there is no indication that pretrial proceedings have concluded in the adversary proceeding. ... Therefore, the court finds that withdrawal of the reference of the adversary proceeding would be premature at this time.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires interpreting federal non-bankruptcy law or analyzing significant open and unresolved issues of that law.

In re Akatugba · filed 2023-08-07(d)

Because Akatugba has not shown that resolving the sanctions motion will require the interpretation—as opposed to mere application—of federal non-bankruptcy law, or the analysis of significant open and unresolved issues of federal non-bankruptcy law, the Court concludes that withdrawal is not required at this juncture.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference without prejudice while the bankruptcy court considers whether the proceeding is core.

HAJJAR BUSINESS HOLDINGS, LLC v. WFCM 2016-C34 MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS NJ NY FL, LLC · filed 2023-08-15(d)

The Defendants’ motion is denied. This is without prejudice to the motion being renewed after the Bankruptcy Court determines whether, in its view, this is a core or non-core matter.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny a motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference as premature when the bankruptcy court has not yet determined whether the proceeding is core or non-core.

BAK ADVISORS, LLC v. SAX LLP · filed 2023-08-16(d)

As a preliminary matter, the Court declines Defendant’s invitation to determine whether the claims against it in the Adversary Proceeding are core or non-core. ... The Court, accordingly, denies the Motion to Withdraw as premature.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw all or part of a referred bankruptcy case or proceeding on its own motion for cause shown.

Adams v. Tavenner · filed 2023-08-16(d)

Thus, the Court may withdraw, on its own initiative, any or all of a case referred to the Bankruptcy Court. It does so here. Due to the request to vacate present in the pending Settlement Agreement and Motion which implicate this Court’s prior rulings, the Court hereby WITHDRAWS the reference regarding any claims of Gary LeClair in the proposed settlement, and any other claims captured in the settlement agreement at issue, and recovers jurisdiction over such claims.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for claims involving settlement terms that implicate its prior rulings.

Adams v. Tavenner · filed 2023-08-22(d)

On August 15, 2023, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), and due to the request to vacate and the contrary factual stipulations set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Motion that implicate this Court’s prior rulings, the Court withdrew the reference of the case to the Bankruptcy Court regarding any claims of Gary LeClair and any other claims captured in the Settlement Agreement.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference until the case is ready for trial, even when the bankruptcy court cannot enter final judgment and a party has a valid jury demand.

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC v. Goodman · filed 2023-09-18(d)

A determination that the bankruptcy court lacks authority to enter final judgment does not mandate withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the proceeding calls for applying established nonbankruptcy law rather than substantially interpreting it.

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS v. BLOCKFI, INC. · filed 2023-09-20(d)

The Government has not carried its burden to demonstrate that the Adversary Proceeding requires interpretation, as opposed to application, of federal non-bankruptcy laws.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause even when the matter is a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In re Heng Cheong Pacific Limited · filed 2023-09-27(d)

On balance, despite the implication of core bankruptcy proceedings favoring the bankruptcy references, cause exists for withdrawing the references for the Foreign Representatives’ Objection.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, assessed through factors including whether the proceeding is core, judicial efficiency, and uniform administration of bankruptcy law.

Terlecky v. South German Village LLC · filed 2023-10-11(d)

The Bankruptcy Code does not define “cause” as used in the first sentence of § 157(d). So district courts have considered many factors in determining whether “cause” exists, including: (1) whether the proceeding is core or non-core; (2) whether it is legal or equitable; (3) the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) prevention of forum-shopping; and (5) the effect of the ruling on uniformity in administering bankruptcy law. ... The Motion to Withdraw the Reference is DENIED.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding’s reference for cause, including when the bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to enter a final judgment.

Vida v. Crawford · filed 2023-11-16(d)

A District Court may withdraw its reference of an adversary proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Such cause exists where a bankruptcy court lacks the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in an adversary proceeding.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial and material consideration of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

SVB Financial Group v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · filed 2023-12-13(d)

Because the Court agrees with Defendants that withdrawal is mandatory, it does not reach the question of permissive withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a reference only when there is a proceeding in bankruptcy court to withdraw.

MIKHOV v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE · filed 2023-12-19(d)

The Government's Mikhov I Complaint was not filed in the Bankruptcy Court; therefore, it did not constitute the type of requisite "proceeding" contemplated by section 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawing a bankruptcy reference early in a proceeding merely because a jury trial may eventually be needed.

Kives v. Alameda Research Ltd. · filed 2024-01-02(d)

As such, judicial economy favors denial of the Motion, and the K5 Defendants’ assertion of entitlement to a jury trial does not alter this conclusion.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred proceeding for cause shown.

White v. Richert · filed 2024-02-12(d)

A district court “may withdraw” any proceeding referred to the bankruptcy court “for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (emphasis added).

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a referred case or proceeding in whole or in part for cause shown.

Kossoff PLLC - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2024-02-16(d)

That leaves permissive withdrawal under Section 157(d), which allows a district court to withdraw in whole or in part any case or proceeding referred under this section for cause shown. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The party seeking withdrawal bears the burden of establishing “cause.”

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding on its own motion or a timely party motion for cause shown.

Crypto Colo Center Corp. v. Dei Vitae Enterprises, LLC · filed 2024-03-04(d)

28 U.S.C. § 157(d) empowers a district court to withdraw a proceeding from the bankruptcy court “on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... Having evaluated the parties’ arguments and independently examined the relevant factors, the Court finds sufficient cause to withdraw the reference. ... As each of the above factors weighs in favor of withdrawal or is otherwise inapplicable, the Court finds sufficient cause to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding solely because it includes non-core claims.

Tilton v. Dunn · filed 2024-03-08(d)

Thus, the presence of non-core claims is not sufficient cause to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy court reference for cause, which the moving party must show; efficiency and uniformity can favor keeping the reference in place.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York · filed 2024-03-13(d)

The Debtor, as the moving party, must show cause why withdrawal is appropriate. ... Referral to the Bankruptcy Court will serve the interests of efficiency and uniformity in the administration of bankruptcy law, as the Petition presents the relatively novel question of whether 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) may be used to remove state court cases in which the defendants are not debtors in the bankruptcy action.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when judicial efficiency and other relevant factors favor withdrawal.

In re: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland Insurance Adversary Proceeding Litigation · filed 2024-03-18(d)

Permissive withdrawal, as sought here, requires a showing of “cause.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... As judicial efficiency would best be served by withdrawal of the reference, none of the factors for permissive withdrawal weigh in favor of leaving the proceeding in Bankruptcy Court, and Plaintiff does not oppose withdrawal of the reference, the Court exercises its jurisdiction to withdraw the reference here.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to delay withdrawing a bankruptcy reference for a jury trial until the claims are ready for trial.

Redmond v. Tarpenning · filed 2024-03-21(d)

It is common practice that even when a party is entitled to jury trial in district court, a district court may exercise its discretion to decline to withdraw the reference until the case is ready for trial. ... The R&R’s recommendation that the Moving Adversary Defend- ants should litigate in bankruptcy court until the claims are ready for trial is sound.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding for cause, but possible de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s findings is insufficient cause by itself.

Desmond v. Wallin · filed 2024-04-09(d)

Although the Court may be required to conduct a de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s eventual findings at some point, that is not sufficient good cause to withdraw the proceeding at this time.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the bankruptcy court lacks final adjudicative authority but other factors weigh against withdrawal.

Kossoff PLLC v. Barasky · filed 2024-04-29(d)

Although the Bankruptcy Court lacks final adjudicative authority over Togut’s first and second causes of action, the remainder of the Orion factors militate against withdrawal of the reference in the Adversary Proceeding, at least at this stage.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when the bankruptcy court’s decision would require de novo review by the district court.

Kurtz v. Angel Ramirez Framing, LLC · filed 2024-05-07(d)

Because any decision by the Bankruptcy Court will be subject to de novo review, this Court finds good cause exists to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because non-core claims predominate.

In re Debtor Cachet Financial Services · filed 2024-05-22(d)

The court, therefore, finds mandatory withdrawal is not required here.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of the reference as premature while dispositive motions remain before the bankruptcy court and the need for a trial is uncertain.

SJS Mechanical Services LLC v. Walsh Construction Company II LLC · filed 2024-05-24(d)

Although the Court finds Walsh’s motion timely in a procedural sense, the motion is nonetheless substantively premature. Because there are dispositive motions currently pending before the bankruptcy court, this Court cannot yet assess what claims, if any, may advance to trial and whether those claims are core claims that would in fact entitle Walsh to a jury trial. In light of this, and because neither party objects to the bankruptcy court continuing to handle pre-trial proceedings (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 20, 24–25), the Court finds that judicial resources will be used most efficiently if this matter remains with the bankruptcy court up until the point of trial.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when leaving pretrial matters with the bankruptcy court promotes judicial economy.

Wellfleet New York Insurance Company v. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. · filed 2024-06-11(d)

Movants ultimately present no contravening policy to rebut the presumption that permitting the Bankruptcy Court to oversee pretrial matters—including ongoing Bankruptcy Court-ordered mediation efforts and significant remaining discovery involving numerous parties—and withdrawing the reference only when it is ready for a trial will promote judicial economy and a timely resolution of this case.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, including when withdrawal would avoid duplicating work on a non-core contract claim.

Empire Stat Group, LLC v. Coalition, Inc. · filed 2024-08-05(d)

After a proceeding is referred to bankruptcy court, a district court’s authority to withdraw the reference is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d): “[t]he district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... Because the claims at issue are recently filed contract claims that the bankruptcy court does not have any specialized familiarity of or experience with, withdrawing the reference will avoid the duplication of effort in resolving the case and is therefore a more efficient use of judicial resources.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial consideration of bankruptcy law and another federal law regulating interstate commerce.

Donnelly v. Anand · filed 2024-08-20(d)

Because the injury required for debt to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) turns—at least in part—on the merits of a Lanham Act claim, withdrawal is mandatory pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) allows a district court to deny withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference after considering the factors bearing on cause, with leave to renew the motion later.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, New York v. Arrowpoint Capital · filed 2024-08-22(d)

As relevant here, when the issue is a “non-core” one, the district court may (and in limited cases must) withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding that has been referred, either on its own motion or by motion of a party, for “cause shown.” ... Upon review of the parties’ briefing in light of the Orion factors and the governing law, the insurers’ motions will be denied with leave to renew, if necessary, at a later stage of the proceedings.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to keep a non-core proceeding in bankruptcy court when the party seeking withdrawal has not shown cause.

Provizor Federal, Inc. v. Loyal Source Government Services, LLC · filed 2024-08-27(d)

Despite finding the Proceeding to be a non-core matter, this Court, exercising its discretionary authority under § 157(d), finds cause lacking to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when judicial efficiency and uniform bankruptcy administration favor keeping the proceeding in bankruptcy court, even if the claims are non-core.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London · filed 2024-10-29(d)

Upon careful analysis, the Court finds that, even if the Claims are non-core, the Orion factors—namely, judicial efficiency and uniformity of bankruptcy administration—favor the denial of LMI and Interstate's motions for withdrawal of reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when a party is entitled to a jury trial and does not consent to trial before a bankruptcy judge.

MMA Law Firm, PLLC v. MORRIS BART, LLC · filed 2024-12-12(d)

Thus, because Morris Bart is likely entitled to a jury trial and it does not consent to a bench/jury trial before a bankruptcy judge, there is cause for withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the reference for cause when judicial economy favors trying non-core claims in district court and a party has timely requested a jury trial without consenting to trial before the bankruptcy court.

Andersen v. Li · filed 2024-12-18(d)

Thus, the Court finds that cause has been shown, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), to withdraw the reference for the 11 non-core claims against Defendant Li of the adversary proceeding.

A district court may deny a request to withdraw a bankruptcy reference without prejudice when the parties seek withdrawal only for trial and a trial remains uncertain.

Healy v. Bao · filed 2025-01-06(d)

Turning to the merits of the requests to withdraw the reference, while the parties heeded the Court’s instruction from the First Order to discuss the factors relevant to withdrawal for cause, the Court concludes that ruling on the Motion and Cross-Motion at this time would be advisory because neither party wishes to withdraw the reference for pretrial matters.

Section 157(d) does not require immediate withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference because a party demands a jury trial; the bankruptcy court may continue to handle pretrial proceedings.

Smith v. Payne · filed 2025-01-06(d)

Despite Defendants’ demand for a jury trial, there is no requirement that this Court withdraw the reference at this stage, and considerations of judicial economy and efficiency counsel against doing so.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, but dissatisfaction with the proceeding or a belief that the bankruptcy court is unfair does not establish cause.

Richert v. Calderin · filed 2025-01-21(d)

Nevertheless, we “may withdraw” any proceeding referred to the bankruptcy court “for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (emphasis added). ... But the Appellant doesn’t cite a single case—and we didn’t find any—for the proposition that a party’s broad dissatisfaction with her bankruptcy proceeding, or her belief that the bankruptcy court is being unfair to her, justified withdrawing the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a reference while leaving pretrial proceedings with the bankruptcy court.

Roystone on Queen Anne LLC v. Citymark Capital LLC · filed 2025-01-27(d)

Therefore, while this Court’s withdrawal of the reference to bankruptcy court is appropriate, it remains prudent for the bankruptcy court to handle pretrial proceedings.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy court reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial consideration of federal law affecting interstate commerce, even if no bankruptcy claims remain.

In Re: Essar Steel Minnesota LLC · filed 2025-02-14(d)

Although Mesabi filed claims against Cliffs under both bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy laws, the Bankruptcy Court has since dismissed all the bankruptcy-based claims, leaving only antitrust and common-law tort claims. Under the interpretation advanced by Cliffs, the dismissal of the bankruptcy claims strengthens the argument for keeping the proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court. This Court and others have rejected such a reading of the statute.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving a claim requires significant interpretation of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

Y. Meghji v. Compound Labs, Inc. · filed 2025-04-08(d)

For the foregoing reasons, chief of which is that the application of federal securities laws to virtual and digital assets is a still-developing field of law, the Court finds that the bankruptcy reference for Plaintiff’s federal securities claim should be withdrawn under Section 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial interpretation of nonbankruptcy federal law regulating interstate commerce.

Littrell v. Burgess · filed 2025-05-01(d)

The Court therefore finds withdrawal of the reference in relation to this adversary proceeding is mandatory pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and related caselaw.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when a non-core proceeding is ready for a jury trial.

In Re: RS FIT NW LLC · filed 2025-05-01(d)

Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that cause exists at this time to warrant permissive withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause shown; a movant who identifies no significant unresolved non-Title 11 issue does not establish mandatory withdrawal.

Marin v. Bahr · filed 2025-05-23(d)

Withdrawal is permissive “for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the movant identifies no nonbankruptcy statute needing interpretation or significant unresolved nonbankruptcy issue needing analysis.

Marin v. Frazier · filed 2025-05-23(d)

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that any non-title 11 statute needs to be interpreted, or any significant and unresolved non-title 11 issue/statute needs to be analyzed in his bankruptcy case(s).

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause and requires withdrawal when qualifying nonbankruptcy federal law must be resolved.

Marin v. De La Torre · filed 2025-05-23(d)

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that any non-title 11 statute needs to be interpreted, or any significant and unresolved non-title 11 issue/statute needs to be analyzed in his bankruptcy case(s).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the bankruptcy court can resolve the claims without substantial consideration of other federal law.

In Re: Florida Structural Group, Inc. · filed 2025-08-05(d)

There are no first impression or complicated issues that cannot be handled by the Bankruptcy Court at this stage of the case. The Court finds mandatory withdrawal does not apply.

Section 157(d) requires cause to withdraw a proceeding referred to a bankruptcy judge.

Whale Capital, L.P. v. Ridgeway · filed 2025-08-08(d)

An action or proceeding can only be specifically withdrawn from the general reference to a bankruptcy judge if the district court finds “cause shown.”... Nor was this claim specifically withdrawn by Judge Currault’s Order, which did not address whether there was cause for withdrawal.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to establish grounds for mandatory or permissive withdrawal.

Abrams v. PG&E Corporation · filed 2025-08-26(d)

Despite citing § 157(d), Plaintiff makes no effort to explain why either mandatory or permissive withdrawal is appropriate here. And the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing that withdrawing the reference is appropriate. The adversary proceeding will not require the interpretation—rather than application—of non-bankruptcy laws, and permissive withdrawal would be an inefficient use of judicial resources, and would harm the uniformity of bankruptcy administration.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, which the party seeking withdrawal must show.

Apple Central KC, LLC v. Applebee's Franchisor, LLC · filed 2025-09-12(d)

The district court may withdraw a matter on its own or on motion of a party for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Defendant bears the burden to show that cause exists for withdrawal of the reference to the bankruptcy court. Defendant fails to meet that burden. The Court therefore adopts the bankruptcy court’s R&R and denies Defendant’s motion.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference until the case is ready for trial when efficiency favors keeping related claims together during pretrial proceedings.

Rainsdon v. Noriyuki · filed 2025-09-25(d)

The withdrawal statute just cited, 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), does not specify what is necessary to show “cause” for permissive withdrawal, but courts have identified a variety of factors that may be considered, including: (1) the efficient use of judicial resources; (2) delay and costs to the parties; (3) uniformity of bankruptcy administration, (4) prevention of forum shopping; and (5) other related factors. ... Accordingly, the reference to the claims alleged in the adversary complaint will be withdrawn when the bankruptcy court certifies that they are ready for trial.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference even when the bankruptcy court cannot enter final judgment, after considering judicial efficiency and related factors.

Inter-Papier Handelsgesellschaft, MBH v. Mendelsohn · filed 2025-09-26(d)

But that result alone does not require withdrawal of the reference. ... In other words, the third group of Orion factors, which broadly encompass judicial economy and efficiency, can still result in a denial of the motion to withdraw.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding merely because it includes RICO claims; the need to consider nonbankruptcy federal law must be substantial and material.

In Re: Vitamin OldCo Holdings, Inc. · filed 2025-09-29(d)

Given the predominance of bankruptcy issues here, and that the two RICO claims are inseparable from the underlying allegations that the Sale Order and Plan were obtained by fraud on the Bankruptcy Court, the Court concludes that withdrawal of the reference is not mandatory.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference until the case is ready for trial while the bankruptcy court handles pretrial matters.

Kurtz · filed 2025-11-14(d)

The Court finds permissive withdrawal appropriate, but only upon certification that the case is ready for trial. Until then, the bankruptcy court shall retain jurisdiction over all pretrial matters, including discovery, motion practice, and case management.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, determined by weighing the relevant factors as a whole.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Hopeman Brothers · filed 2025-11-17(d)

With the core / non-core factor weighing significantly in favor of withdrawal, and all remaining factors either weighing neutrally or, in the case of judicial efficiency, in favor of withdrawal, the Court finds that Liberty Mutual satisfies its burden of establishing cause for withdrawal of the reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal because a proceeding is non-core to first seek a core or non-core determination from the bankruptcy court.

Y. Meghji v. Mashinsky · filed 2025-11-17(d)

The Court agrees. ... First, as the In re Enron court explained, courts in the Second Circuit have interpreted the governing statue, 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), “as requiring a party to seek an initial determination from the bankruptcy court concerning whether a proceeding is core or non-core before moving to withdraw the reference in part on the grounds that the proceeding is non-core.” ... Here, as there, the movant has not sought such an initial determination from the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, but withdrawal may be denied as premature when the bankruptcy court has not determined whether the proceeding is core.

Alexander · filed 2025-12-19(d)

Upon balance of the factors identified in Holmes, the Court declines to withdraw the reference. ... In this case, upon review of the Bankruptcy Court’s docket and the parties’ briefing, it does not appear that the Bankruptcy Court has decided whether the adversary proceeding is core or non-core. This fact alone supports denying the Motion to Withdraw.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the motion does not call for substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.

Ward · filed 2026-01-15(d)

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Debtor failed to satisfy the requirements for mandatory withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), as the Motion does not allege substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law. ... the Court finds no clear error and adopts the Report (DE 3) in its entirety and incorporates it herein by reference.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; the movant must identify the proceedings and establish grounds for withdrawal.

Kerrigan v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association · filed 2026-01-21(d)

Indeed, a movant seeking withdrawal must identify specific proceedings, explain their location in the record, and demonstrate why they fall outside the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

Section 157(d) assigns decisions on whether and when to withdraw a bankruptcy reference to the district court.

Edmonds · filed 2026-02-18(d)

A motion to withdraw the reference must be heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5011. ... The bankruptcy court does not decide whether and when the reference will be withdrawn.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; a motion that identifies no specific cause does not justify withdrawal.

In re Black Stone Investment Group · filed 2026-02-20(d)

Here, the Motion to Withdraw does not outline any specific cause for withdrawal of the reference, much less address the six factors district courts consider when evaluating such requests under Section 157(d), As such, the Court finds that that the Motion to Withdraw should be denied, See id. at 386 (denying withdrawal of the reference because the parties requesting withdrawal “failed to satisfy their burden to establish a ‘sound articulated foundation’ for permissive withdrawal of the reference”).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference until the case is ready for jury trial while the bankruptcy court handles pretrial matters.

Soule · filed 2026-03-09(d)

But the Bankruptcy Court will maintain the reference until the case is ready to proceed to trial, and will supervise any discovery, conduct all pretrial conferences, and rule on pretrial motions.

Section 157(d) requires cause to withdraw a bankruptcy reference; a jury demand and refusal to consent to a bankruptcy court jury trial do not alone require withdrawal before the proceeding is ready for trial.

In re FTX Trading Ltd. · filed 2026-03-17(d)

Even assuming that Movant has demonstrated that it is entitled to a trial by jury, it has shown no reason why its refusal to consent to a jury trial before the Bankruptcy Court requires that the reference be withdrawn now, rather than when the Adversary Proceeding is ready for trial.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference only for cause shown; it gives no unconditional right to withdrawal.

Grove · filed 2026-03-25(d)

But in citing § 157, Grove ignores that the provision directs withdrawal only “for cause shown.” The provision does not provide an unqualified right to withdrawal at any time.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to keep a proceeding in bankruptcy court while pretrial matters continue when the need for a jury trial remains uncertain.

Babin v. Crescent Drilling & Production · filed 2026-04-22(d)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the reference should be maintained at this time.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of the reference for a case or proceeding, but not for individual issues within a contested matter.

In re Charles Edward Lincoln, III · filed 2026-06-09(d)

Those are not contested matters (proceedings) for which the reference can be withdrawn pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) but instead are issues that have arisen in contested matters.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, which may require assessing whether the proposed claims are futile.

Reyes-Colon · filed 2026-06-16(d)

To determine if cause was shown, the Court conducted a plausibility analysis because no cause would exist if the claims in the motion to withdraw were futile.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial consideration of material nonbankruptcy federal law.

Hardy · filed 2026-06-22(d)

Thus, it is not enough for a plaintiff to argue—as Hardy does—that her case implicates non-bankruptcy law in some tangential way that merely calls upon the bankruptcy judge to apply well-settled law; withdrawal of the reference is required only when the case calls upon the bankruptcy court to resolve substantial questions arising under some law other than Title 11.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw part of a bankruptcy reference for cause; a partial withdrawal made effective nunc pro tunc defeated the challenge here.

Barona Group of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. American Management & Amusement, Inc. · filed 1987-08-07(d)

AMA next contends the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the Band’s summary judgment motion because it did not formally withdraw its reference of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (Supp. III 1985) to the bankruptcy court. We disagree. ... On June 22, 1987, the district court partially withdrew the reference of this case under Chapter 11 nunc pro tunc to September 15, 1986, to determine the issue of the validity of the tribal bingo management agreement. ... Thus, AMA’s claim necessarily fails.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to demonstrate the grounds for withdrawal.

United States v. Hatch · filed 2002-09-27(d)

The Hatches have not demonstrated the elements of a mandatory withdrawal. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause after considering whether the matter is core and factors such as judicial economy and uniform bankruptcy administration.

Lawrence Group, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance (In Re Lawrence Group, Inc.) · filed 2002-11-15(d)

The withdrawal of a reference to the bankruptcy court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). That section provides, in part, that “[t]he district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... Finding the instant matter to be non-core weighs in favor of withdrawing the reference. The other factors similarly support withdrawing the reference.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to leave a proceeding in bankruptcy court through pretrial matters when judicial economy and bankruptcy administration favor doing so.

Charmoli v. Aspen American Insurance Company · filed 2023-06-13(d)

The factors of judicial economy and convenience, uniformity in bankruptcy administration, forum shopping/confusion, the court’s familiarity with the case and conservation of resources all favor denying the motion and leaving the case in the bankruptcy court until trial.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to retain a bankruptcy reference during pretrial proceedings despite a jury demand when other considerations favor retaining it.

GenCanna Acquisition Corp. v. 101 Enterprises, LLC · filed 2023-06-21(d)

The defendants’ right to a jury trial weighs in favor of granting the motion for withdrawal. But withdrawal of the reference based on this reason alone “would prevent any non-core matter from ever being referred to the bankruptcy court.”

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when efficiency favors resolving non-core claims there.

(BK) Taggart v. Roberts · filed 2021-05-10(d)

Lastly, the court concludes that any disruption to the uniform administration of the bankruptcy estate is outweighed by the efficiencies that will result in withdrawing plaintiffs’ non-core claims to this court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause; non-core claims and a jury-trial right do not by themselves require withdrawal.

Gladstone, Esq. v. Admiral Insurance Company · filed 2021-09-13(d)

In sum, Defendant has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating cause for permissive withdrawal.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make an insurance coverage dispute a core proceeding solely because it affects estate administration or liquidation.

Green v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company, Limited · filed 2021-12-20(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Because such disputes generally are based upon state law (or, in this case, foreign law), the catch-all provisions of § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) cannot alone render such issues as “core” proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make an insurance coverage dispute a core proceeding solely because it falls within their catch-all language.

TK Holdings Inc. · filed 2021-12-20(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Because such disputes generally are based upon state law (or, in this case, foreign law), the catch-all provisions of § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) cannot alone render such issues as “core” proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make a state law insurance coverage dispute core merely because the policy proceeds may benefit the bankruptcy estate.

National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance (In Re National Century Financial Enterprises) · filed 2004-07-23(b)(2)(A), (O)

Further, while resolution of the D & 0 policy may fall within the broad language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(l)(2)(A) and (0), the Court agrees that the better reasoned view is that a state law contract action, such as the one at bar, is non-core.

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat a state-law claim about a loan sold before bankruptcy as a core proceeding merely because the loan’s servicing rights were later sold in bankruptcy.

Bailey v. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC · filed 2004-07-23(b)(2)

The Court also finds that this claim is not a “core proceeding.” The loan at issue was not part of the bankruptcy assets, and, though the loan is tangentially related to Conseco’s bankruptcy proceedings because the rights to service the loan were apparently sold in those proceedings, the loan itself was sold to U.S. Bank before Conseco even filed for bankruptcy. This type of claim is not enumerated as a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), nor is it analogous to any of the claims enumerated therein.

Section 157’s core proceeding authority does not extend to a prepetition payment from an insurer to claimants’ counsel that was not affected by the bankruptcy filing.

In Re Western Asbestos Co. · filed 2004-07-14(b)(2)

The payment is not unique to the bankruptcy, and was not affected by the filing of the bankruptcy petition since the language of the Settlement specifically stated that the payment would not be returned if the Plan was disapproved. (Settlement at 3.2(d)). Therefore, there is scant evidence to support a finding that the $12.3 million payment was a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) treats a proceeding as core if it enforces a right created by bankruptcy law or could arise only in bankruptcy.

Transouth Financial Corp. v. Murry · filed 2004-06-02(b)(1)

Under this definition, appellants’ independent Tippins actions “do not meet the definition of a core proceeding. There is no substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law that appellants are attempting to enforce through this action, and appellants do not assert a claim that could only be brought in a bankruptcy proceeding.”

Section 157 treats a repossession action that exists outside bankruptcy as a non-core proceeding.

Oakwood Acceptance Corp. v. Tsinigini (In Re Oakwood Acceptance Corp.) · filed 2004-04-13(b)(3)

The Court finds that this repossession action is not a core proceeding because it has existence outside of the bankruptcy.

Section 157(b) does not make state law claims core proceedings merely because a defense may require interpretation of a bankruptcy plan or court order.

Kmart Creditor Trust v. Conaway (In Re Kmart Corp.) · filed 2004-03-25(b)(2)

PwC may have some defenses based on interpretation of the Plan, other bankruptcy court documents, or non-court documents. However, these defenses do not convert what is otherwise a purely state court cause of action into a core matter.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify prepetition state law claims as core proceedings when they exist independently of bankruptcy and the parties’ rights are unaffected by its outcome.

Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., Inc. · filed 2001-06-04(b)(2)

The Court holds Plaintiffs’ claims are non-core because: 1) the claims are not specifically identified as core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); 2) the claims existed prior to the filing of the corporate Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy petitions; 3) the claims are based solely on state law and therefore exist independent of the provisions of Chapter 11; and 4) the parties rights are not affected by the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.